XLIX] Studies in primitive Greek religion. 45 



"What took place when the boundary-stones were fixed 

 was not an act of worship in the ordinary sense of the word; 

 it was — as we gather from the above passages — a sort of 

 compaet at which each of the partners on oath made a pro- 

 raise not to intrude upon tlie dominion of his neighbour. The 

 sacrifices again were made, not to the stone ^), but probably 

 to the invisible powers who were supposed to reside at the 

 boundaries or in the earth, and who were calied forth to wit- 

 ness the compaet and to put the curse into efFect on the eventual 

 oath-breaker 2). The stone itself is not the abode of any spirit; 

 it is rater the altar on which the oath is taken ^), „the sworn 

 mark of friendship and hatred", and the awe with which it is 

 regarded is due to the fear of the curses it contains. 



For our present purpose this ceremony is of interest 

 because in its way it bears out the primitive Greek belief 



et coronis eos coronabant. In fossis auteni, in quibus eos posituri erant, sacri- 

 ficio facto bostiaque immolata atque incensa, facibus ardentibus in fossa cooperti 

 sanguinera instillabant, eoque tura et fruges jactabant, faros quoque et 

 vinum aliaque quibus consuetudo est Termino sacrum fieri, in fossis adjiciebant. 

 Consumptisque igne omnibus dapibus super calentes reliquias lapides collo- 

 cabant, atque ita deligenti cura confirmabant; adjectis etiam quibusdam sacro- 

 rum fragminibus circumcalcabant, quo firmius starent. Tale ergo sacrificium 

 domini, inter quos fines diriraebantur, faciebant". On the rites performed to 

 the boundary-deities, ef. also Plut. Ntima, c. 16. Dion. Halic. II, 74. 



^) Dr. de Visser founds his assuraption that the boundary-stones were 

 really worshipped as fetishes mainly on the statement in Theophrastus' Cha- 

 racteres, where the superstitious man is pictured who, when passing a stone 

 at the cross-road, pours oil on it, falls his knees and adores it (Op. dt. p. 6). 

 But this stone is no boundary-mark at all; it is a simple instance of stone- 

 worship that Theophrastus records. — When Dionysius Halicarnassius says that 

 the Eomans considered the boundary-niarks themselves as gods. this may be due 

 to a misunderstanding. However it is not impossible that by the lower popu- 

 lation they came to be regarded as real fetishes, since the idea of some- 

 thing sacred and inviolable easily passed över into the idea of a god. 



') Cf. Plut. Numa, c. 16: rbv oqiov &Edv elgi^vrjs (piikaxa xal öiyai- 

 oovvi]s [låQTvv etc. . . . That here we have to do with an act of solemn 

 promise appears clearly from Plutarch"s statement. Cf. ibid. : . . . yal JliaxEcos 

 yal TÉQuovos iegöv lÖQvoao&av, etc). Even the ogioi &eoi of whom Dionysius 

 Halicarnassius speaks and to whom sacrifices were performed every year (II, 74), 

 were obviously lower nature-spirits which were conjured forth as witnesses. 



') Ån alter (^afiös) such a boundary-stone is accordingly calied in an in- 

 scription preserved in Demosth. Halonnes. cc. 39, 40: xalrot Xeqqov^oov ol oqoi 



